HS2: why fork?

[mrodent]

I fully expect to have my head bitten off on this, as I am anything but a rail expert.

Wouldn't it be simpler and cleverer to extend only one line north of Birmingham, making it curve just east of Manchester city centre, then head north-east to curve just west of Leeds city centre?

With the 100 miles of track saved you could then extend all the way to Newcastle. Obviously the longer the HS2 is the more it tends to make sense, from many points of view. Once you get to Newcastle a future govt could then maybe find a bit more money to get to Edinburgh/Glasgow (Independent Scotland permitting). This could then completely undercut so much domestic air travel.

This way you would also then have a magnificent high-speed route between Leeds and Manchester, where the trains are currently so diabolical, probably taking about 15 minutes to get from one city centre to the other.

 

[adamedwards]

You just missed all the cities along the Midland Mainline so failed to release capacity on that route for more Thameslink trains. Also tunneling under the Pennines will be a lot more than surface tracks to the east.

 

[mrodent]

Er, yes, obviously my suggestion involves not having a rail line where a rail line is currently planned. The question was really an invitation to consider pros and cons.

"all the cities along the Midland Mainline". Which cities do you mean? Surely HS2 must stop very infrequently: otherwise there's little point in building the thing, because it'll never attain "HS" and the average speed will drop to scarcely more than that of 125s.

I presume the stopping points have already been sketched out: between Birmingham and Leeds how many stopping points are we expecting? And where? On the map Sheffield and possibly Derby look like the only possible points.

I question whether much digging under the Pennines would be needed between Manchester and Leeds: the ideally positioned gap between Diggle and Marsden looks more than feasible to me. (https://contourmapcreator.urgr8.ch/)

 

[D365]

You just missed all the cities along the Midland Mainline so failed to release capacity on that route for more Thameslink trains. Also tunneling under the Pennines will be a lot more than surface tracks to the east.

These are the two points that I would agree with, especially the latter. A high speed link between Manchester and Leeds will be explored under the auspices of “Northern Powerhouse Rail”.

 

[edwin_m]

There's a thread on integrating HS2 with Northern Powerhouse Rail which has covered this topic at length in the last couple of weeks.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/possible-combination-of-hs2-phase-2-with-rail-north.200192/

 

[mrodent]

[NB in fact I posted my 2nd post above before the next two replies: but because I'm new my reply had to wait to be moderated and then published (anti-spam measures)]

I had a look at that "possible combination" thread: it's a bit different really. I'm suggesting that it could (not must!) be viewed as a higher priority to 1) get further north (Newcastle) more quickly and 2) to provide an HS Manchester-Leeds connection more quickly.

The Pennines are not the Alps, and I wonder what people (experts?) have to say about that Diggle - Marsden gap? View contours here: https://contourmapcreator.urgr8.ch/.

PS if you have a particular interest in the (presumed) economic benefits for communities along the current Birmingham-Leeds leg of the "Y", it might be useful to say so. From what I've seen (Wikip, etc.) it seems that there is a planned station at Toton/Nottingham but that Sheffield won't have an actual HS station, but instead will be connected with some sort of spur. How critically determining it therefore is just to connect Nottingham in this way must surely be open for discussion?

 

[swt_passenger]

[NB in fact I posted my 2nd post above before the next two replies: but because I'm new my reply had to wait to be moderated and then published (anti-spam measures)]

I had a look at that "possible combination" thread: it's a bit different really. I'm suggesting that it could (not must!) be viewed as a higher priority to 1) get further north (Newcastle) more quickly and 2) to provide an HS Manchester-Leeds connection more quickly.

The Pennines are not the Alps, and I wonder what people (experts?) have to say about that Diggle - Marsden gap? View contours here: https://contourmapcreator.urgr8.ch/.

PS if you have a particular interest in the (presumed) economic benefits for communities along the current Birmingham-Leeds leg of the "Y", it might be useful to say so. From what I've seen (Wikip, etc.) it seems that there is a planned station at Toton/Nottingham but that Sheffield won't have an actual HS station, but instead will be connected with some sort of spur. How critically determining it therefore is just to connect Nottingham in this way must surely be open for discussion?

AIUI Toton is aimed at the wider Nottingham and Derby area. If serving Nottingham only was the aim they’d have possibly gone nearer Nottingham. It’s East Midlands Parkway re-imagined...

I don’t see the station actually using the name Toton when it opens either.

 

[adamedwards]

Toton could East Midlands International, like Stratford in East London

 

[HSTEd]

I'd argue that the reason we have a Y shaped network was the desire to serve both the Nottingham/Derby area and Sheffield on the main line.

Now that Meadowhall has been ditched due to the hubris of the Sheffield Council I am not convinced the branch north of Toton to Leeds has much purpose.
It could be ditched for a line diverging from the tunnel south of Picadilly and proceeding directly to Leeds.

 

[adamedwards]

But Sheffield will be on a loop off HS2 via Chesterfield and there is potential for trains from Nottingham to join HS2 at Toton, so HS2 could then create a very fast Nottingham - Sheffield - Leeds service. Sheffield has not been ditched. I'd argue the new plan is much better.

 

[HSTEd]

But Sheffield will be on a loop off HS2 via Chesterfield

It's not a loop, its a spur.

 

[JamesT]

It's not a loop, its a spur.

The map on the HS2 website shows connections both north and south of Sheffield.

 

[HSTEd]

The map on the HS2 website shows connections both north and south of Sheffield.

This map, indicates that HS2 is not taking responsibility for a northbound connection from Sheffield.

 

[JamesT]

This map, indicates that HS2 is not taking responsibility for a northbound connection from Sheffield.

https://www.hs2.org.uk/where/route-map/#10/53.3999/-1.3337 shows a northbound connection in orange, indicating it is part of HS2. The whole line through Sheffield is shown in blue, even though work will be required to allow HS2 trains to use it.

 

[HSTEd]

https://www.hs2.org.uk/where/route-map/#10/53.3999/-1.3337 shows a northbound connection in orange, indicating it is part of HS2. The whole line through Sheffield is shown in blue, even though work will be required to allow HS2 trains to use it.

This is new.
This was not originally in any of the Phase2b documents.

Although is scarcely matters, the crawl from Chesterfield to Sheffield and then to Thurscoe will be so slow that it will be scarcely faster than the existing journey time.

EDIT:

It's 54km on the classic line through Sheffield to the point where it apparently proposes to rejoin HS2.
54km!

HS2 via Meadowhall would have done it in 45km, which at 320km/h plus about six minutes of lost time for a stop gives us aj ourney time of about 15 minutes.

The journey time from Chesterfield to Sheffield alone is 14 minutes for the fastest trains today.
It's going to be painfully slow.

The current Leeds-Sheffield journey time is about 40 minutes at minimum, only 11 of which is burned north of Wakefield Westgate.
Which means that a big fraction of the journey time appears to be in the section of line HS2 rejoining trains will stil be using.

Which begs the question.... what's the point of actually running trains that way?
Especially as any train that runs that way will never be able to use Captives if that ever becomes an issue.

 

[adamedwards]

I would assume:

• Fast trains to Leeds and further north will not run via Sheffield. They will use the HS2 main line which goes east of Sheffield.
  
• London to Sheffield trains will use the spur/loop line.
• Some Birmingham to Leeds trains will go via Sheffield to relieve the Cross Country trains.
• There may be London Euston - Sheffield - York - Newcastle - Edinburgh trains if that's going to create a service people want.
  
• Northern Powerhouse Rail/HS3 services from various places may use HS2 and come into Sheffield from the north.

So lots of possiblilites.

 

[mrodent]

Could a new thread be started on specifically clarifying what the eastern fork of the HS2 is going to do under current plans (and views thereon)?

I realise of course that such matters are not wholly unrelated to the title and purpose of this thread, but when it comes to speculating about "Northern Powerhouse Rail/HS3", when the current HS2 costing is already north of £100 Bn, with delivery of the whole thing not for 15-20 years (according to this), it seems that that sort of talk/justification may belong in another "Speculative ideas" thread.

I again ask people (experts?) to comment on the Diggle-Marsden Pennine gap and whether that sort of contour profile represents a serious, costly impediment to doing Manchester-Leeds. Contour map here: https://contourmapcreator.urgr8.ch/.

 

[Altnabreac]

I’m not convinced your Manchester - Leeds route will be a lot cheaper than Birmingham - Leeds so I don’t think there will be a lot of money left over for heading further north. Therefore my assessment of the proposal would be:

Faster and more capacity for:
Leeds Manchester
Leeds Liverpool
Newcastle Manchester
Newcastle Liverpool

Slower and less capacity for
Nottingham London
Derby London
Sheffield London
Leeds London
Newcastle London
Leeds Birmingham
Newcastle Birmingham

It’s also impossible to deliver a 3 hour journey time Edinburgh - London via Newcastle without the Birmingham - Leeds line so it undermines the case for extending HS2 in Scotland.

Overall your negatives outweigh your positives.

 

[swt_passenger]

Could a new thread be started on specifically clarifying what the eastern fork of the HS2 is going to do under current plans (and views thereon)?

Why not get it from the horses mouth, and look it up on DfT website?
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/hs2-phase-2b-design-refinement-consultation

 

[AM9]

... I again ask people (experts?) to comment on the Diggle-Marsden Pennine gap and whether that sort of contour profile represents a serious, costly impediment to doing Manchester-Leeds. Contour map here: https://contourmapcreator.urgr8.ch/.

I fail to see the relevance of the contour map in respect of HS2 routing. Those involved have evaluated the broader requirement of enhancing north/south rail travel and the consensus is that the eastern limb of the 'y' gives the most effective way of improving capacity that serves places currently provided by the ECML and MML.
As far as NPR is concerned, although the HS2 2b future detailed has been linked to a proposed E-W route crossing the Pennines somewhere east of Manchester, that has only really been considered as a 125mph railway, i.e. a normal high speed line, and over the distance of Leeds-Manchester, (c. 60km), there would be little if any gain having any alignment specifically to allow speeds above that. As far as the terrain goes, the Victorians chose routes across the Pennines that reduced the quantity of tunneling and gave the least aggressive gradients for the motive power of the day. Speeds were such that curvature of the track was allowed as it had little impact on much slower trains that were the norm. Today, the picture is different that tunneling is much easier, cheaper - indeed it is often preferred to avoid land acquisition of for local environmental considerations where there is not a 'railway' need for it to be done. So the breadth variations of the high Pennine chain is of less importance than the settlements that the route might impact on.
All of the very high speed sections of HS2 are much longer than the total Manchester-Leeds gap, e.g. Old Oak Common to Birmingham Interchange ~150km, Birmingham Curzon St. to Manchester Aitport ~120km, Leeds to Toton ~100km and Toton to Birmingham Curzon St ~70km - although much of the traffic on that leg will be en route for Leeds so part of a much longer journey.

 

[HSTEd]

It’s also impossible to deliver a 3 hour journey time Edinburgh - London via Newcastle without the Birmingham - Leeds line so it undermines the case for extending HS2 in Scotland.

But since this is not the (very late) BR era, the primary route to Scotland is now via Carlisle.

Newcastle might get left on a limb but Scotland does not.

The distance of line bypassing sheffield gets you most of the connection from Manchester to leeds, even if you leave the pointless high speed stub north of Sheffield.

And since it seems the Eastern branch has been shoved into the long grass of "Phase 2c", I very much doubt any of it will be built.

 

[ohgoditsjames]

But since this is not the (very late) BR era, the primary route to Scotland is now via Carlisle.

Newcastle might get left on a limb but Scotland does not.

The distance of line bypassing sheffield gets you most of the connection from Manchester to leeds, even if you leave the pointless high speed stub north of Sheffield.

And since it seems the Eastern branch has been shoved into the long grass of "Phase 2c", I very much doubt any of it will be built.

You call it a "pointless high speed stub north of Sheffield" but this "pointless" section is integral for NPR's ambition for 27 minute journey times between Leeds and Sheffield.

 

[HSTEd]

You call it a "pointless high speed stub north of Sheffield" but this "pointless" section is integral for NPR's ambition for 27 minute journey times between Leeds and Sheffield.

You spend so long crawling north of Sheffield to reach it that it won't make any real difference to the journey time as it is.

 

[ohgoditsjames]

You spend so long crawling north of Sheffield to reach it that it won't make any real difference to the journey time as it is.

Evidently NPR disagree.

However I understand what you're saying, if they actually want those kind of journey times they'll need to resolve the Northern throat at Midland and upgrade the line between those points. Expensive job, especially the Northern throat section, cutting into that stone would likely require long blockades etc however I think it's something that needs to be done eventually anyway.

 

[Altnabreac]

But since this is not the (very late) BR era, the primary route to Scotland is now via Carlisle.

Newcastle might get left on a limb but Scotland does not.

The distance of line bypassing sheffield gets you most of the connection from Manchester to leeds, even if you leave the pointless high speed stub north of Sheffield.

And since it seems the Eastern branch has been shoved into the long grass of "Phase 2c", I very much doubt any of it will be built.

The primary route London to Edinburgh is not via Carlisle now!

Historically HS2’s plans have tended to indicate that via Carlisle could become the main route For that flow but current thinking north of the border is very much that via Newcastle will be the way to deliver the sub 3 hour journey time in future.

 

[mrodent]

I fail to see the relevance of the contour map in respect of HS2 routing. Those involved have evaluated the broader requirement of enhancing north/south rail travel and the consensus is that the eastern limb of the 'y' gives the most effective way of improving capacity that serves places currently provided by the ECML and MML.
As far as NPR is concerned, although the HS2 2b future detailed has been linked to a proposed E-W route crossing the Pennines somewhere east of Manchester, that has only really been considered as a 125mph railway, i.e. a normal high speed line, and over the distance of Leeds-Manchester, (c. 60km), there would be little if any gain having any alignment specifically to allow speeds above that. As far as the terrain goes, the Victorians chose routes across the Pennines that reduced the quantity of tunneling and gave the least aggressive gradients for the motive power of the day. Speeds were such that curvature of the track was allowed as it had little impact on much slower trains that were the norm. Today, the picture is different that tunneling is much easier, cheaper - indeed it is often preferred to avoid land acquisition of for local environmental considerations where there is not a 'railway' need for it to be done. So the breadth variations of the high Pennine chain is of less importance than the settlements that the route might impact on.
All of the very high speed sections of HS2 are much longer than the total Manchester-Leeds gap, e.g. Old Oak Common to Birmingham Interchange ~150km, Birmingham Curzon St. to Manchester Aitport ~120km, Leeds to Toton ~100km and Toton to Birmingham Curzon St ~70km - although much of the traffic on that leg will be en route for Leeds so part of a much longer journey.

Thanks, that really explains some of the issues nicely. Are we really sure Toton - Leeds will be non-stop? (NB I had a look at the DfT page as suggested, and am none the wiser). This NPR map is quite interesting, and there's currently a station just outside Sheffield. Also I understand that over the 60 km between Manchester and Leeds the periods of acceleration and deceleration would reduce the average speed you might attain, but my thought was also that sitting on a high-speed train between Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester (easily our 3 most important northern cities) and London would be simple, fun and dependable. If it's 300 miles in length the benefits of "HS" (relative to what we've got) would really start to manifest themselves.

The UK's rail system is not and never will be that of Switzerland, so this cross-pollination between NPR and HS2 is bound to result in people spending more time than they want in Costa Coffee in future futuristic, bleak, freezing cold, wind-swept stations in the middle of nowhere, waiting for the next super-fast train to pull in, which kind of defeats (some of) the object. Having two lines north of Birmingham solves that issue for the people in the Leeds catchment area of course.

"Those involved have evaluated the broader requirement of enhancing north/south rail travel and the consensus is" - who cares what the consensus might be? It might be right or it might be wrong, but it is much more likely that there will be pros and cons between the different choices, and I'm interested in exploring these pros and cons.

 

[Sceptre]

After the South Yorkshire section got moved away from Meadowhall, the non-Sheffield councils started pushing for a parkway station, but I'm not sure if anything's happened on that front recently.

 

[JamesT]

The NPR map doesn’t show a station outside Sheffield, it’s a black dot which the key says is a junction with HS2.

 

[AM9]

Thanks, that really explains some of the issues nicely. Are we really sure Toton - Leeds will be non-stop? (NB I had a look at the DfT page as suggested, and am none the wiser). This NPR map is quite interesting, and there's currently a station just outside Sheffield. Also I understand that over the 60 km between Manchester and Leeds the periods of acceleration and deceleration would reduce the average speed you might attain, but my thought was also that sitting on a high-speed train between Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester (easily our 3 most important northern cities) and London would be simple, fun and dependable. If it's 300 miles in length the benefits of "HS" (relative to what we've got) would really start to manifest themselves.

High Speed trains will run from Newcastle to Birmingham and London, from Leeds to Birmingham and London, and with NPR, from Manchester to Leeds and onwards to Newcastle. It is irrelevant how much 'fun' it might be but if passenger demand justifies it I'm sure that High Speed trains will run from Newcastle via Leeds to Manchester. NPR is very much abouit reducing travelling time between various centres important in the North, but as has been explained so many times on other threads, much more time is saved by removing or reducing the slow bits, whereas the difference between 100km journeys having 50% of that distance running at 186mph vs 125mph is very little, and generally not much of a return for the additional capital infrastructure required.

The UK's rail system is not and never will be that of Switzerland, so this cross-pollination between NPR and HS2 is bound to result in people spending more time than they want in Costa Coffee in future futuristic, bleak, freezing cold, wind-swept stations in the middle of nowhere, waiting for the next super-fast train to pull in, which kind of defeats (some of) the object. Having two lines north of Birmingham solves that issue for the people in the Leeds catchment area of course.

"Those involved have evaluated the broader requirement of enhancing north/south rail travel and the consensus is" - who cares what the consensus might be? It might be right or it might be wrong, but it is much more likely that there will be pros and cons between the different choices, and I'm interested in exploring these pros and cons.

The routes of the HS2 'Y' has been developed over 12 years with the knowledge that NPR will be integrated for trunk route journeys in the north for half of that period. The development has been taken as a national requirement and based on actual and projected demand for rail travel. That is the basis that the almost 'shovel ready' project that has passed many stages of the parliamentary process, whether various groups disagree with the consensus or not. More procrastination is just a tactic of those who don't want it at all. Despite the current government's desire to keep its new found support in northern constituencies, they realise that such delaying tactics may damage the whole NPR project and little will change.